Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Social Network

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 209 posts

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#171

Post by reaperducer »

cronix wrote: post #143
ethagknight wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, I'm speaking from Apple's perspective thinking through how they could double in value. I don't think the current method of bills coming from everywhere with different payment requirements is all that great. If this new "middleman" provides value and protects me, then what's the problem? I wouldn't see direct integration with my apple device as a middleman but an endpoint. Furthermore, there are loads of whitelabe…

I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely. I think it's funny how some people (and Apple themselves) always say how Apple is so privacy conscious, while at the same time they made 9 Billion Dollars from Google by using Google as the default search engine in Safari (which most people don't change). So it seems they're willing to sell some…

I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely.

Based on the series of frustrating searches I did in iTunes last night, Apple either isn't working on this at all, or isn't using iTunes as a testbed.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#172

Post by cronix »

cromwellian wrote: post #154
cronix wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely. I think it's funny how some people (and Apple themselves) always say how Apple is so privacy conscious, while at the same time they made 9 Billion Dollars from Google by using Google as the default search engine in Safari (which most people don't change). So it seems they're willing to sell some…

The search engine isn’t the only issue. I mean, the App Store allows Facebook and a bonanza of other privacy violating apps. Apple to some extent launders responsibility for extremely useful services that require or use personal data by outsourcing it to others. Why not actually turn iMessage into a privacy preserving social network? For the same reason, as with search, I think the difficulty is underestimated.

To me, the difference is Apple enables Google as the default search engine by default, for everyone, while the app store is stuff the user manually opts-in for by selecting what to install.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#173

Post by cmsj »

vectorEQ wrote: post #22

one of the few companies who consistently keeps bumming it's users with higher prices for the same shit and no one is complaining :')... look at most tech giants out there, and you will see only Apple and Nvidia keep cranking up prices for same product range. only companies where you need to pay MORE to get the same tomorrow. buying a relationship with apple? first treat your users like they have value, thank you.! n…

Google Pixel 2: $649 Google Pixel 3: $799

hmmm ;)

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#174

Post by snuxoll »

cmsj wrote: post #162
bedhead wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, one of these things is not like the other. However, I think in the next ten years, Apple will regret having neglected this product category, and Ubiquiti is making inroads into consumer-grade products as well as service providers and enterprise-level networking. I just think it's interesting that Ubiquiti was born out of Apple and was able to turn this into a super interesting and profitable business ev…

Two brief points: 1) Just because the Ubiquiti founder came from Apple, doesn't mean that Apple should be in the quasi-enterprise networking space that Ubiquiti is. Apple's networking gear was always aiming to be simple, plug-and-play hardware for people who don't want to think about networking. That's pretty much the opposite of Ubiquiti's products. 2) When Apple was still doing things like networking, we had a lot…

> Apple's networking gear was always aiming to be simple, plug-and-play hardware for people who don't want to think about networking.

This is the real kicker in today's landscape and why it doesn't make sense for Apple to even be in this market, there's no such thing as "plug-and-play" for the majority of consumers these days when for proper functionality you must go into your ISP-provided equipment and disable the WLAN radio, put it into passthrough mode (if that's even possible, some ISP's like AT&T don't even provide equipment with proper passthrough mode), god help you if you use DSL and need to get PPPoE credentials which are automagically configured for you these days by some captive portal when you first plug your equipment in.

It's literally harder to use your own equipment these days than it used to be before every ISP started providing integrated gateways, so the current market for standalone equipment is people who need something other than "plug-and-play" - because they already get that from their ISP (even if the hardware usually sucks, it's good enough for the average consumer who thinks they get "their WiFi from Comcast").

Apple doesn't need to be in networking anymore, there's not a large enough market for products like the Airport AP's anymore and if they actually want to compete they have to battle with the likes of Ubiquiti, Cisco, Ruckus, HP (Aruba), etc. - not ASUS, TP-Link, Buffalo, Netgear, etc. Seeing as they have no plans to revive the Xserve, I doubt they care about having a foothold in wiring closets and datacenters.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#175

Post by macintux »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #146
ethagknight wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, I'm speaking from Apple's perspective thinking through how they could double in value. I don't think the current method of bills coming from everywhere with different payment requirements is all that great. If this new "middleman" provides value and protects me, then what's the problem? I wouldn't see direct integration with my apple device as a middleman but an endpoint. Furthermore, there are loads of whitelabe…

> I'm speaking from Apple's perspective But why? It greatly puzzles me how many "consumers" now think in terms of "brands" and dream up and discuss strategies on behalf of them. Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers, and customers should concentrate on not getting fleeced.

> Companies should concentrate on fleecing customers

This mentality is a problem. Companies have many valid motivations, and certainly profit is one, but long-term success is rarely predicated on gouging customers.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#176

Post by basch »

clairity wrote: post #158
basch wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. Apple needs to move into full banking. Mint, 401k Management, Bill Pay, TAXES, Yahoo Finance, Student Loans, the old Manilla (collecting ALL aggregate statements in one place forever.) They should buy Schwab, Envestnet, Personal Capital, YNAB, and Motif and slap a Robinhood/Monzo coat of paint on a new frontend. They could go from Apple Pay to Best Banking Experience in the World, in no time. As f…

this... makes no sense strategically (though i understand your apple fandom). apple is a consumer electronics company. banking is a completely different industry, and a heavily regulated one at that. apple's move here is to use applepay as a platform to allow other companies to do those things. they're executing that strategy quite competently. they won't (i.e., can't) ever become a bank (consumer, lending, commercia…

Its not really apple fandom, id be fine with Google or Microsoft or Facebook getting it right too. I do think Apple's stance on privacy makes them the most desirable company to handle taxes and investments? It makes strategic sense in that Apple is positioning itself as the tech giant to be trusted with your: communication, finance, passwords, photos etc.

Apple is not just an electronics company, and their latest earnings report makes that exact point. Its about subscriptions and service, not devices. They want to hook you on Apple Music.

Fintech isnt just banking. Intuit, Personal Capital, and Envestnet are services that layer on top of banking.

What I described is not an all or nothing approach, its a bunch of ideas. Apple could very much add money management services without offering lending.

Making someone like Schwab their "first party" bank would mostly be a commitment to customer service and "it just works" more like Apple Stores, than anything else.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#177

Post by macintux »

briandear wrote: post #144
moolcool wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine if those “luxury” expenses were intermixed with a dozen other large, more legitimate bills? Apple could be processing $1000s a month per household, taking a hefty fee from some of them. That's what we need-- another middle man taking a even more off the top of every transaction.

I happen to like “middle-men” — when it improves my experience and saves time. I don’t want to go to the refinery to buy gas any more than I want to spend a day driving to a dozen farms to pick up my weekly groceries. Middle-men are bad when they add no value. For example, subscriptions in the App Store — I love that because I can go to one place and cancel anything instantly without having to go through The NY Times…

A long time ago I hoped Apple might set up some sort of micropayment system for online journalism. I don't want to get subscriptions to all of the news sources I appreciate, but I'd love to throw some money their way.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#178

Post by drywater »

mkirklions wrote: post #46
throwawayinside wrote: post #25

If you are a developer with a SaaS business, be very afraid. Apple is going to do everything possible to collect a 30% tax on your business to fix their growth problem. It’s ironic, really. The company that mastered tax evasion is about to become the world’s most determined tax collector.

Ib4 apple downvote storm. Dev here, I actively campaign against Apple (and FAAG) products. They seem like a danger to our capitalistic system as they have enough power to sway politics. Apple has always been anti-dev from my point of view, forcing users to use their hardware and pay to produce apps. While there doesnt seem to be many 'good guys', Apple has used their weight to constantly do unpopular things for their…

>toward more consumer and dev friendly high end products.

Such as?

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#179

Post by briandear »

throwawayinside wrote: post #25

If you are a developer with a SaaS business, be very afraid. Apple is going to do everything possible to collect a 30% tax on your business to fix their growth problem. It’s ironic, really. The company that mastered tax evasion is about to become the world’s most determined tax collector.

If it means I don’t have to handle payments in my own system and it improves distribution, that’s an awesome deal. That gives me more cycles to improve my actual product and not spend so much time with billing and payments.

Re: Apple’s Social Network

#180

Post by arnvald »

ummonk wrote: post #161
cronix wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the single biggest thing they could do to get to $2T is build their own search engine, and ditch google completely. I think it's funny how some people (and Apple themselves) always say how Apple is so privacy conscious, while at the same time they made 9 Billion Dollars from Google by using Google as the default search engine in Safari (which most people don't change). So it seems they're willing to sell some…

This is unlikely to happen but I'd certainly like to see it happen, as Duck Duck Go simply does not work as a substitute for me, and I don't know that Bing is any better than Google privacy-wise. If Microsoft can make Bing, Apple can certainly make Apple Search - they have plenty of cash to throw at the problem.

I like DDG, although I still need to use Google every now and then. Apple could acquire and improve DDG instead of building an engine from scratch
Post reply on HN